Across human history countless forms of "religious beliefs" have existed. Some peaceful, as with respect for the natural world. Others horrific, as with practice of human sacrifice. What they have in common is that all occur under the rubric of "faith." Faith is by its nature subjective and irrational, influenced by a host of factors endemic to one's time and place in history.

On a psycho-social level, "religious activity" too often equates to duplicitous acts of power and control. Far from bringing out the best, it often fosters the worst, the most barbaric. It might be suggested that "religion" includes an ideal goal of helping one achieve a higher state of consciousness and providing a much needed moral/ethical compass. But in few other realms, aside from politics, does one find such a gap between theory and application.

No matter how "enlightened" a philosophical world view may be, it is open to abuse, as a means of justification of greed, violence, discrimination and a host of ugly, hurtful tendencies. At the same time, it can and often does offer direction and support for those determined to "think good thoughts and do good deeds." So, it would appear to be a two-sided coin. The primary mistake in all this is when the faithful take it as more than a path to constructive existence. When they actually ascribe their believes to a supernatural power and, thus, find a means to justify the persecution of those who sustain other views.

It is not this simple, of course, but in the end I cannot see where a faith-based perspective has any validity or promise of a better world. Even if every word is TRUE, a significant segment will abuse it in some negative, extreme form...to inflict harm on behalf of some illusionary, vengeful god.

Thank you for your posts. My friends and I join you in mourning the THREE martyrs and many other peaceful Ahmadis killed in Pakistan recently. The world is now gradually recognising that your peaceful sect represents the brighter side of Islam.

As Mahatma Gandhi once declared, "It takes great courage to choose the path of PEACE". We all have anger and violence in us. To control them is more human than to exercise them!!

Every human has a right to recognise the spirituality in others. If Ahmadis recognised the extraordinary spirituality of Ghulam Ahmad and continue to acknowledge his spiritual guidance, they have a RIGHT TO DO SO.

Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat responds to killing of 3 Ahmadi Muslims in Indonesia

Perpetrators will be answerable to God Almighty

It is with great sadness that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at confirms that yesterday on 6th February 2011, 3 members of its community were martyred in Indonesia in an utterly barbaric and brutal attack.

The attack occurred in Cikeusik, south of Banten in Indonesia and was conducted by a large group of people numbering between 700 and 1,000. The attack occurred even though police had been forewarned for a number of days about an imminent attack on the local Ahmadi Muslims. Despite the warnings the police failed to take any measures or steps to prevent the attack.

It is reported that the attackers came to the local centre of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat brandishing machetes, spears, knives and other weapons. As a result 3 Ahmadi Muslims were martyred publically and 5 others were seriously injured. 2 cars, 1 house and 1 motorcycle belonging to Ahmadi Muslims were also burnt down. Thus far no one has been arrested by the police in relation to this incident.

Speaking from London in response to these brutal killings, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat said:

“This horrific attack has caused grief and pain to all Ahmadi Muslims worldwide and indeed to all peace loving people. The barbarity of the perpetrators knows no bounds; indeed people watching the merciless beatings were clapping and cheering. The local police and authorities failed to protect the Ahmadi Muslims and allowed them to be exposed to this cruel and brutal attack.

Whenever such attacks occur the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat both in Indonesia and worldwide always displays patience and seeks solace not in revenge or violence but through prayers to God Almighty and this will always remain the case. It is however certain that those who have inflicted these cruelties will be answerable to God Almighty and will have to face His punishment. In the meantime the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat will continue to bow down in front of the One God and seek His Protection and Help.”

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat calls on the Indonesian Government to fulfil its mandate to protect all of its citizens, regardless of religion. It is also hereby clarified that no Ahmadi Muslim was involved in any form of provocation whatsoever and that these attacks were motivated simply due to the fact that the victims were members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. It is a tragedy that these Ahmadi Muslims were martyred in the most barbaric way because they chose to live their lives by the Ahmadiyya motto of ‘Love for All, Hatred for None’.

A further Press Release with particulars of the deceased and further details will soon be issued.

Asalin, I think you are mad, but that’s not what frightens me. What frightens me is that every time I read people like you at the same time I do a retrospective of European history I wish for history to repeating itself.

Every point you have made is a matter of YOUR BELIEF - whatever you have heard from a lot of other PEOPLE - whatever has been written down by some people.
It has to be a matter of belief that at least a million years after human being appeared in this planet, GOD Spoke to many prophets, and chose just one prophet to be the final one for the next millions of years of humanity's likely existence in this one planet.

BUT other religions also BELIEVE in GOD's WORDS. But, unfortunately, those WORDS are different from what Muslims believe in.

Therefore, there are, in this world - there will ALWAYS be in this world - a few billion people who will NOT share your belief.

Your posts are, in effect, saying to the rest of the world, 'You are wrong not to believe in Islam'. You are justifying the Islamic word, 'infidels'. You may be justifying the persecution of non-Muslims, starting with Ahmadis, Bahais, Hindus, Christians, and, even the Shia, Islmailis and Sufis, all sub-sects of Islam.

There is the beginning of persecution and conflict. There is the basis for the perception that the religion of Islam is also a political ideology designed to keep its army intact and punish the 'deserters'. Islam has its own 'military' uniform for men and women too!!

The ongoing systematic and brutal persecution of the extraordinarily peaceful Ahmadi Muslim Community should make clear to anyone with any shred of common sense that there are clear divergent representations of Islam and its followers known as Muslims.

To anyone with an interest to understand Islam in its true representation of peace, tolerance, loyalty and love, simply examine the Ahmadi Muslims (www.alislam.org). To those with an agenda to label Islam as a religion of hate, intolerance and violence then simply look at those who persecute the Ahmadis, and follow the media as usual.

@dogsi, Firstly once again its all about context. Pulling a verse out of the hat and using it to prove something is pretty dodgy. The verses you quote (At Taubah) states in its opening that it's about peace treaty between muslims and polytheists.

Allah stated that muslims are given four months to hold themselves although the polytheists break the peace treaty, because Allah gives time to those mushriks, whether they want to continue the peace treaty honorably or continue the war

And after four months ended, muslims are permissible to start the offensive war against the mushriks except for those tribe who..

(At Taubah, 9:4) excepting those mushriks with whom you made treaties. and who afterwards did not violate these in the least nor did they give help to anyone against you; so you also should observe the treaties with such people in accordance with their terms, for Allah loves the pious people.

And even in the time of offensive war, when a polytheist show interest in uinderstanding Islam, special rules apply.

(At Taubah, 9:6) And if any of the mushriks requests you for protection so that he may come to you (to hear the Word of Allah), give him protection till he hears the Word of Allah; then convey him. to the place of his safety: this should be done because these people do not know the Truth

After Islam is presenting before him and he chooses not to convert, it's muslim's obligatory to escort him back to his safe place. Such person is categorized as musta'min, a non-muslim which is legally protected by the muslim authority.

So it's not convert or die. It's never like that.

It's those mushriks broke the peace treaty, but wait for four months, give them time to think, then start the offensive again, except to those tribes who didnt violate the peace treaty, and if any of them show interest in understanding Islam, then tell him about Islam, protect him and escort him to his safe place though at the of the day he chooses not to be muslim

(In Islamic history, Kannah and Damrah tribe in Mecca, and one or two small clans, are the ones considered to upheld their peace treaty honorably with muslims)

The recent brutal killing of three Indonesian Ahmadi Muslims is really shameful. No one in his right senses would do a thing like this. I can not understand what on earth these monsters are doing. People of today’s civilized world can be so blinded with their hatred for Ahmadis that they can not differentiate between humanity and wildness. What they did is an example of barbarism and I strongly condemn it.

"@Bismark111:
I was speaking of the society, not the government. Under Suharto's regime, religion organizations were greatly restricted as they represented a challenge to Suharto's authority. Any organization, whether it was cultural or religious in nature, was oppressed.

Since then, organizations have been "freer" to act. Unfortunately, this is causing an initial increase in conflict.

While the government was less religious at that time, society was not"

I think its a bit more complicated than that. There is a interrelationship between the two. Its how you define religion. If you mean equate religion with Islam. Indonesia in 1970s was less religious. Indonesia / Malaysia 30-40 years ago was far less "Islamic" than it is now. Traditional beliefs (cultural) were far more dominant. In Malaysia they did not restrict the wearing of Jilbab 30-40 years ago. Women just did not wear it.

Actually during the Suharto regime, Religious organizations were not restricted that much if they kept to religion. The same with cultural groups. Suharto used the NU and other religious organizations to go after the Communist in 1965. You know who slaughtered 500,000 Communist, not the TNI. For the most part they just dumped the bodies, it was Muslim groups. Suharto tried to manage and court them at the same time. This increasingly became evident during the later years of the Suharto regime. Why did he do that, because Indonesian society itself was becoming more religious or Islamic. He had to boast his Islamic credentials. When I was in Indonesia in 1980s, you never saw pictures or videos of Suharto going to the Mosque. Toward the end he was beating the drum on the first day of Ramadan.

Then there was the move to legislate religion, starting from 1965. Indonesians did not have to specify a religion on their ID cards prior to 1965. Once that was the requirement, people who were traditional Javanese, had to do so. Many did so to get government benefits.

A society that religion plays an important role does not tolerate an organization such as the Indonesian Communist Party with 1.5 Million members. You have to distinguish between traditional secularism and modern secularism. Traditional Javanese society is fairly secular. Inter religious marriage is common among the Javanese. Benny Moerdani was Catholic, but his Father was Muslim. He followed his mother's religion.

In middle class Indonesian society today, it would be strange a Muslim man would tolerate that. Was Benny Moerdani's father, a "modern" man?

"As Indonesians become wealthier and better educated, they are moving away from religion (a general trend that holds true in all countries)."

I don't think that is necessarily true. Why is it that all the 7/7 bombers were all British born Muslims or brought up in the UK. Their father's would never even think of doing such things. Why is that its more likely to be the younger generation of immigration Muslim women in the West wearing the Niqab and not their mothers.

Thanks to dogsi for your insights. While my limited knowledge chimes with what you say, I think it is incomplete. The bible (esp. the old testament) is full of vile, misogynistic, homophobic, racist violence. You could equally quote the bible and make the case that xianity is a religion of violence, and not of peace.

I *do* make that case. As we all know, the xian church has been responsible for horrific acts, perhaps most famously during the inquisition. (Which, BTW, still exists but was rebranded some decades ago. The previous head of the organization was none other than the current pope.) In short, they're all as bad as one another.

What links them is their notion that because their beliefs constitute a "religion", they get to do what they like. When they're in charge they do it explicitly. When they're in broadly secular societies, they demand a free pass. It's not so long ago that you could claim a religious exemption for refusing to rent to a black (or mixed) couple. Even today, some folk run public guesthouses yet demand the "right" to be able not to rent to gay couples. Etc.

Asilan (page 1) is all too typical. As someone wrote, s/he seems to be claiming BOTH that these murders are a terrible thing, but also that it's justified because islam has somehow has been insulted/deprecated/whatever.

Asilan is entitled to his views. But those views should be contradicted at every turn. He CANNOT have it both ways. I was asked above by Rusty94114 what I would do about this (broader) problem. One thing would be to call Asilan on s/his hypocrisy. Another would be to tell the "xian" couple (and all their fellow travellers) that they are not entitled to a special pass in respect to laws that demand equal treatment for gays, and so on. I would turn to those and demand an apology for publishing cartoons about Mohammed and say NO! We have free speech here. You do not get special treatment. I certainly would not pay a penny towards security for the pope when visiting the UK.

What we've done is turned our quite reasonable desire for religious tolerance morph into tolerance for religious bigotry. We should say NO. We should say it NOW and we should say it often. In as many ways as we can.

@Bismark111:
I was speaking of the society, not the government. Under Suharto's regime, religion organizations were greatly restricted as they represented a challenge to Suharto's authority. Any organization, whether it was cultural or religious in nature, was oppressed.

Since then, organizations have been "freer" to act. Unfortunately, this is causing an initial increase in conflict.

While the government was less religious at that time, society was not.

The situation with the Ahmadiyah reminds me of the religious persecution and violence the Mormons faced in the 1800s. Essential theological arguments against Mormons vis-a-vis the mainstream Churches is the same as that between Ahmadiyah and mainstream Islam. The argument even now among mainstream Christian Churches is that its OK to call your self a religion, but not call yourself Christians.

It's not about the rule of law. It's the lack of enforcement of that law or incredibly biased enforcement.

Last year that was an attack on a Bataknese church in Bekasi. A priest was stabbed and died. One of the men responsible for the stabbing was brought up on charges and found guilty. He was given a few months in prison and instructed to pay 1000 IDR in damages. 1000 IDR is equivalent to 11 cents. 1000 rupiah is what is given to beggars. Apparently, it's the value that the Indonesian court decided a Christian priests life is worth."

Yes there is a bias in the Indonesian legal system. We don't know what type of bias it is in this case. We will never really know. Is it money bias or simply religious bias, considering how corrupt the legal system is in Indonesia.

"While this does not represent Indonesians as a whole, it is a rapidly rising trend. Even the Indonesian governments own published figures state this. As Indonesians become wealthier and better educated, they are moving away from religion (a general trend that holds true in all countries). The Islamic organizations are fighting against this change."

I disagree with your views, because five years you been in Indonesia can't explain the trends that have been going on for the past 20-25 years. I had been in Indonesia on and off for 17 years starting from the early 1980s, and Indonesia has become a much more religious society compared to the early 1980s when I first came to Indonesia. During the 1980s, it was forbidden for children or teachers in public schools to wear the jilbab. Female civil servants were not allowed to wear the jilbab either. Remember, in 1965, Indonesia had the largest Communist Party outside of the USSR and China.

SBY says many things. It rarely has any bearing on reality and he rarely acts to make it a reality. SBY also did not immediately state such things, it was only due to international pressure.

While this does not represent Indonesians as a whole, it is a rapidly rising trend. Even the Indonesian governments own published figures state this. As Indonesians become wealthier and better educated, they are moving away from religion (a general trend that holds true in all countries). The Islamic organizations are fighting against this change.

Fortunately, I believe the rising intolerance is actually a cultural conflict that is occurring because of a decline in religious sentiment in the general populace. Only time will tell if I am right or not though.

It's not about the rule of law. It's the lack of enforcement of that law or incredibly biased enforcement.

Last year that was an attack on a Bataknese church in Bekasi. A priest was stabbed and died. One of the men responsible for the stabbing was brought up on charges and found guilty. He was given a few months in prison and instructed to pay 1000 IDR in damages. 1000 IDR is equivalent to 11 cents. 1000 rupiah is what is given to beggars. Apparently, it's the value that the Indonesian court decided a Christian priests life is worth.

I am an American living in Indonesia. I have been here for about 5 years and will likely be staying here for quite some time. My wife is an Indonesian and my children have dual citizenship.

Despite what many groups of people try to claim, Islam is not a religion of peace. I often hear people claim that the word "islam" means, peace. A blatant lie. Salam means peace. Islam means surrender or submission. Drastically different meanings and connotations.

As you can see from Asalin's post on the first page, muslims generally condemn the violence AND justify it at the same time. They speak as if the victims deserved what they got because they provoked the muslims. I have been told many times that I am "offending" some one when I tell them I don't believe Mohammad was a prophet.

Muslims in general behave this way because that is what the koran teaches.

I will present a few examples. I will also link the references to show that they are Islamic based translations of the al'quran. I have currently read 3 separate translations of the koran, front to back. I have not read all of the hadiths but I have read a good number of them. I do not claim to be an expert, as I am not, but I have spent a number of years reading and researching about Islam, so I am fairly well versed. There is no where near enough space here for me to adequately show the true scope of the violence preached in the koran, but I'll give a small sample.

http://quran.com/9
9:5
"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Convert or die.

9:12
"And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease."

This justifies violence against any who insult Islam. Insults can be as simple as saying Mohammad is not a prophet.

9:23
"O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers."

One of the 30 or so surrahs forbidding muslims to befriend non-muslims.

9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

One of the surrahs that supports the dhimini laws.

Ect. People in the West need to open their eyes and read the al'quran. To assume that all religions are equal is a dangerous fallacy.